Douglas Alexander: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"notes with horror the devastating impact of Cyclone Nargis upon the people of Burma; recognises the vast scale of humanitarian assistance needed urgently to prevent further loss of life; is appalled at the unacceptably slow pace at which the Burmese authorities have so far allowed in international expertise for the relief effort, and at their lack of capacity to distribute aid to the affected areas; calls upon the Burmese authorities to allow immediate and unfettered access for both the delivery of aid and for its distribution inside Burma; strongly welcomes the UK Government's initial £5 million pledge to the relief effort for emergency items; strongly supports the UK Government's exchanges with key international partners in order to bring about a concerted international effort for access for humanitarian assistance; in this regard, welcomes the visit to countries in the region by Ministers from the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; urges countries in the region to increase their efforts to persuade the Burmese authorities to allow in unfettered international assistance and to ramp up the delivery of aid; and strongly supports continued efforts of the United Nations to secure access and ensure aid is delivered to those in need."
	Let me begin by associating myself with the statement of sympathy offered by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) to the people of China in light of the terrible earthquake that has afflicted the country. I will address the hon. Gentleman's points in the course of my remarks, but let me start by updating the House on the latest assessment of the situation in the affected areas of Burma. Then I will share with the House the efforts we are making to provide humanitarian relief, before detailing our political and diplomatic efforts to secure further access for aid and, indeed, for humanitarian workers.
	As the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield described, the situation in the disaster zone of the Irrawaddy delta is rapidly deteriorating—largely, and tragically, because of the inadequacy of the Burmese regime's response. People are dying now not because of a natural disaster, but because a disaster has been turned into a man-made catastrophe. The state media in Burma are reporting that some 28,500 people have died, 1,400 are injured and more than 33,000 are missing. However, we believe the true figures to be far greater.
	I spoke only this morning to Rurik Marsden, the head of the Rangoon office of the Department for International Development, and some agencies in the field are now estimating that the number of dead and missing is rising to more than 200,000 people. At least 1.5 million people are in need of assistance, and for 300,000 of those the need is desperately urgent.
	The likelihood of widespread infectious disease as a consequence is increasing fast. The initial risks are diarrhoea and water-borne disease. One aid agency to which we have spoken reports that one fifth of the children they have reached already have diarrhoea. In time, there will be an increased risk of the spread of malaria due to the large amounts of standing water following the cyclone.
	There have been some signs in recent days that the amount of aid reaching Burma is increasing. As of Monday, just 35 flights had arrived in the course of the preceding week. In contrast, two US military flights arrived in Rangoon this morning, along with eight aid flights, and we expect a total of 23 flights to arrive in the course of today. One of the eight aid flights to arrive this morning was carrying UK assistance—36 tonnes of plastic sheeting, which is enough to provide shelter for many thousands of people. That shipment was consigned directly to the UN World Food Programme—not, of course, to the Government of Burma—and distribution within Burma will now be taken forward.
	Four further UK aid flights are expected to fly out this week, with shelter and blankets as well as flat-bottomed boats to help those most in need. We will also supply experts, both in Bangkok and in Rangoon, to ensure the smooth running of relief flights into Rangoon, and I have also requested the Ministry of Defence to direct HMS Westminster to the region to assist in any appropriate humanitarian response. That request has been approved, and HMS Westminster is now on its way to international waters off the coast of Burma.

Mike Gapes: The UN 2005 millennium summit resolution defines the meaning of the responsibility to protect narrowly, and it does not include general humanitarian issues and other non-specific issues. Is it likely that the Security Council would agree to such action when there is already difficulty over the interpretation of the current narrow definition? Also, will the British Government in any circumstances support—or oppose—unilateral action by a group of countries, which seems to be what is implied by the Opposition motion?

Michael Moore: It is a pleasure to follow the Secretary of State. Like him, I join the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), and others across the Chamber in expressing sympathy for the people who have lost family members and friends and who even at this moment have no idea what their future will be after this unimaginable disaster of the past 10 days.
	I welcome the statement that was part of the Secretary of State's speech today, and acknowledge his intention to come back to the House and make a statement in his own time at some point this week. The official Opposition have however provided us with a good opportunity to air all the different issues and to examine thoroughly what has been going on and what can still go on. I welcome the shadow Secretary of State's decision to move this motion.
	On the vexed issue of the motion, I have listened carefully to the contributions from both Front Benches and I wish to make it clear that we will support the motion. It is a shame that the Secretary of State cannot bring himself and his colleagues to support it. I recognise that they have some concerns about the language, but surely what matters is the message that this House sends to the outside world, rather than a dispute about who said what and when, and what represents a particular point of view. In the past few minutes, the Secretary of State has said that we rule nothing out, so I do not understand why the Government cannot accept a motion containing the words
	"should consider all options for getting help to those who need it, including using direct aid drops."
	The Secretary of State has helpfully updated us, although starkly so, about the situation on the ground—it is under water, tragically—in Burma. Some 200,000 people may have lost their lives, and that is a staggering figure—it represents nearly every person who lives in my part of the south of Scotland—and 1.5 million people are homeless or in need of emergency assistance, 300,000 or 400,000 of whom desperately so.
	As the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State said, there are some urgent priorities: clean water, food, shelter and medical assistance. The World Food Programme estimated the other day that it was able to deliver only about one fifth of the 375 tonnes of food required each day and that instead of two to three aircraft landing each day, one needed to land every 45 minutes or so.
	We should be encouraged, to a certain degree, by what the Secretary of State just told us. He said that about 25 to 30 aircraft are landing today. We must hope that that level will be maintained and that the aid can be used immediately and responsibly. It should not, as others have highlighted, be hijacked by the generals and their acolytes, and then be rebadged or simply not distributed.
	Food prices in the region were already climbing astronomically—they have increased by 30 per cent. this year alone—and this situation can only worsen that trend. Let us not forget Burma's tragic recent history. The Saffron revolution of only a few months ago started on the back of fuel price increases and other problems in the country, as well as the fundamental flaws in the regime. The country was desperate before these past few days.
	Dr. Gareth Price and Tamara Lynch of Chatham House—I declare an interest as, like the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), I am a member of its council—have stated:
	"It is pretty clear that the government in Burma focuses more on remaining in power (and self-aggrandisement) than on responsiveness to people's needs."
	Those two people do not have an axe to grind; they are not party politicians or non-governmental organisations, but individual experts making a damning indictment. Their assessment highlights the fact that despite the arrangements made by neighbouring countries in the region facing the same risk of cyclones, Burma has had no cyclone warning system. It also has no system of building cyclone-safe houses. Although such houses have not protected Bangladesh in every last respect, they have brought about a major improvement there in recent years. Even the Burmese military—the much-vaunted 500,000 people who are the regime's elite—has been forced to feed off the land; vegetables are being grown beside airstrips and there are chicken coops behind the barracks.
	Burma is a country with a twisted set of priorities that has never got things right, and in this moment of crisis, we have not seen a proper response. Indeed, we have seen the absolute obscenity of proceeding with a referendum on a constitution to which nobody can give any credence—it is simply designed to entrench the power of the military. Above all, we have seen the disgraceful and unbelievable response to the cyclone: the refusal of all outside assistance. That assistance ought to be making the difference in saving lives that are at risk.
	At this time, we learn that the generals' preoccupation is that somehow outside assistance would strike at the heart of the regime's legitimacy and the country's national sovereignty. For that reason, the generals feel that they must reject the assistance, but I suggest that the regime has no legitimacy to lose. The very nature of the military dictatorship goes against every standard and norm that we would support. The reaction to the democracy protests both a few months ago and over many years, the treatment of Aung San Suu Kyi and the regime's complete failure to prepare for events such as these are sadly predictable. It is not outsiders who are undermining the regime's legitimacy; the regime itself is doing so.
	That whole debate has enlivened the broader one that we are having internationally—we have also heard it here this afternoon—about the responsibility to protect. We are arguing over how formal that responsibility is and what it has meant in the past few years, but surely that fancy new phrase simply formalises the basic humanitarian instincts that we all have and to which we respond on occasions such as this, when we expect Governments, as a basic part of their duty, to protect the people who live in their countries. The responsibility to protect, as formalised and debated in recent years, has been clearly based around the ideas of the responsibility to prevent, the responsibility to react and the responsibility to rebuild. On all those grounds, the Burmese regime has failed, not just in the past 10 days, but over many years.
	The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, of which Gareth Evans was a member, published a report in December 2001 and kick-started this debate more broadly at the United Nations. It stated:
	"Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of...state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect."
	So, we cannot pretend that this is not a legitimate area for debate, and we must be clear that in our deliberations we are examining where we can go using that new authority. I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for International Development, the Prime Minister and others have recognised that it is a legitimate part of the process. I equally acknowledge that it is not straightforward, to put it mildly, to move the debate through our partners in the United Nations Security Council, and I hope briefly to discuss that in a little while.
	We must not assume in this debate that that responsibility means an automatic rush to have military action, or military or another assertive form of intervention. Military action is an option, but it must only be a last resort and it is not what is contemplated in this situation. As the shadow Secretary of State made clear, and as the motion sets out, our instincts and objectives are humanitarian. Inevitably, military assets and military assistance will be necessary and useful in making the humanitarian intervention more effective, so we must be prepared to argue the case in not only this Chamber but the broader international community.
	The international response has been patchy. We can be encouraged by the fact that in this country and many others there has been a good response from the public to the appeals made by the Disasters Emergency Committee and others. I am sure that hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House would encourage everybody who can to contribute to that assistance. We know that major NGOs, such as Save the Children and Merlin, which are mentioned in the motion, and others, are making strenuous efforts as we speak to minimise the cost to lives and the quality of lives in Burma.
	Thailand, as a neighbouring state, has been as supportive as it can be and is hosting much of the international support network. China, we have seen in recent months, is more willing to play a quietly assertive role with the Burmese. We must hope that China will not stand in the way of the international community's making it plain to the Burmese that their attitude is not acceptable or sustainable.
	As we sympathise with the Chinese about their terrible loss over the past couple of days following the earthquake, we must also congratulate them on the speedy way in which the Chinese Prime Minister and others have been at the scene of the disaster and on how they have encouraged others to contribute to what they are seeking to do. That lesson might have been very painful for them to learn, but I hope that they will see the logic of extending that lesson to their neighbour. India, too, surely has an important role to play, and has been sadly too quiet in its comments thus far.
	On such occasions, we are used to turning to regional bodies and wondering what they are doing. I do not think that I am alone in being frustrated at the slowness of the response from the Association of South East Asian Nations countries, of which Burma is one. It is deeply alarming that it has taken them so long to gather. It was good to hear that they will have a mercy mission and that they will hopefully ratify that on the 19th, but surely this disaster needs not bureaucratic responses but political pressure, applied quickly and now, to make the Burmese change their minds.
	I am pleased that the Secretary of State talked about bringing our European partners together and the fact that the commissioner is to visit the region. Perhaps the Minister who replies to the debate might also brief the House on the extent to which European funds and other forms of support have been offered by our partners. It is important to demonstrate that Europe can come together on these issues and be more effective than we are bilaterally. In particular, the UN reckoned a few days ago that $187 million of support might be needed—although the figure might have changed—but we have not heard thus far how much of that has been delivered. It would be helpful to know what will happen.
	Ministers, officials and others are to be congratulated on the efforts that they have made so far and on their steadfastness. We know that they were working over the weekend to brief colleagues in the House as well as attending to the details of what was going on. We cannot criticise them on that level. We want to know if they believe that as a result of their actions, in Europe and elsewhere, the funding and logistical support will be in place for that moment when, we must hope, the Burmese change their attitude and allow things to move on.
	In particular, may we have an assurance that the money that has been pledged is additional to that that was already in the budget for the region or for Burma—that it is not replacement or accelerated funding, which would otherwise have been given later in the year? It is important that we have that assurance, and a statement this afternoon would be helpful.

John Battle: I welcome this debate and the topic that has been chosen by the Opposition. It is a credit to us all that at a time when we have talked for weeks about the world economic crisis, the credit crunch and pressure on budgets in Britain, we respond generously as a country when we see a humanitarian crisis and people losing their livelihoods and lives. We ought not to forget that in the arguments we have in this House.
	I believe that the Government need to be congratulated on the fact that they responded quickly and have given an international lead in their response to the appeal and the crisis. That is good news. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) was generous enough to acknowledge the work done by the former Secretary of State for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), in trying to sharpen up the UN humanitarian response. It had been a bit of a shambles, frankly, but some order was put into the system. We are trying to give a lead, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield for his remarks.
	In parenthesis, the debate is haunted by the fact that we have much to do to transform, reform and shape the UN and to turn it into a body that defends the universal common good, whether during humanitarian disasters or when countries inflict violence on their own populations. We have much to do to turn the UN into an international body that serves the general common good of our world. It is difficult when there is a need for consensus and we cannot reach one, and that is perhaps why we end up in the difficulties that we do.
	It would be desperate if, in spite of the Government's good efforts and the financial commitments that people have given in appeals, as well as the Government's budgeting to ensure that there is money for aid in such crises, our response and the need to focus on the provision of humanitarian aid and the needs of the people of Burma were to degenerate into a debilitating political stand-off between the west and Burma, or a deadlock in the UN Security Council while thousands needlessly die. There is a danger that the response to the crisis might end up like that.
	I know from my experience on the Select Committee on International Development over some years, and from my experience over the years of the management of disasters and crises elsewhere, that we ought to try to keep together meeting the need for materials—food, water tablets and sanitation equipment—and the deployment of professional, experienced people on the ground to ensure that aid reaches people in an orderly fashion and that there is some sense of process. What has happened in Burma is the worst disaster since the tsunami in 2004. We have all worked on the reports from this House on implementing the lessons from that disaster, so we must look back at what happened then and ask what we learned—we did learn from that disaster—as well as what we can do better. We should try to the best of our abilities to cajole the international community to get Burma on side to deal with the crisis properly.
	Richard Horsey, from the UN humanitarian operations, has pinpointed four immediate needs: clean drinking water; emergency shelter; medical supplies and support, which are not easy to drop from the air in any circumstances; and food. Estimates have varied and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the figures that he gave. The latest reports from the ground estimate that the number of people dead and missing is now more than 200,000. At least 1.5 million people are in need of immediate assistance and more than 300,000 are in desperate need. This is not a small-scale emergency but a major emergency for the Burmese people.
	The estimate that 300,000 people are in dire need means that a minimum of 150 metric tonnes of food a day must be sent into that country now. That is the equivalent of 10 standard relief flights a day for food alone. We heard today that since the cyclone hit, there have been about 35 flights. The scale on which food has been provided is completely out of kilter with what is needed. That is why this is an urgent debate about how to deal with the crisis, rather than just an attempt to nudge the UN in the right direction and to ensure that it gets its terms of reference right. Such urgency needs to be injected into that debate in the UK and internationally.
	Today the UN is calling for an air bridge or a sea corridor. There were even hints that a floating warehouse in the Irrawaddy delta region could be used to channel in aid on the scale needed. I would like to know whether those practical proposals are being discussed internationally, both at the UN and with the Burmese authorities. Let us literally give the authorities a bridge—a way forward—through the difficulties. If the aid, and the personnel to manage the aid, do not get through, in not many days there will be starvation and disease on a scale that we have not seen before, as the second wave of the disaster hits the Burmese people.
	I would like more clarification from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on the following point. The regime still insists that it does not really need aid on the scale that is envisaged, and it seems to be insisting that it does not need practical assistance in delivering that aid, yet I get the impression that it does not even have the equipment to unload planes properly. Loads are passed from hand to hand; the people do not have the necessary equipment. I was under the impression that army checkpoints have been used in the delta region to prevent personnel from foreign non-governmental organisations from entering. I think that it is still difficult to get a permit to move out of Rangoon. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may have said that there has been an ease-up in the situation, which would be most welcome.

Mike Gapes: I agree with much that has been said and I will not repeat those points, but I want to pay tribute to the non-governmental organisations that are today doing vital work in Burma, but also in other parts of the world, saving lives and improving the conditions of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. That work goes on, day by day, regardless of whether newspapers and television programmes are showing any interest in it. It is important that members of the British public know that those organisations are not corrupt, that they are efficient and that, as has been said, money that is given gets through directly.
	I concur with the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) who talked about the situation with the vile brutal regime in Burma. It is important that we understand that as well as not doing enough, or actively impairing humanitarian efforts, it has also devoted its television channels to broadcasting smiling, dancing women, telling people to go out and vote; it has postponed its referendum on its fake constitution in the area that is now under water by just a few weeks, seemingly in the belief that it can then run some falsified referendum in a few weeks' time; and it is still pursuing its brutal repression of the ethnic groups in the rest of its country. This, after all, is a very complicated country, where there is a brutal military regime at the top, which does not have the support of the people, and where Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy, 20 years ago, won a democratic election—then she was put under house arrest, which she has been unable to leave. It is important to place that on the record today.
	The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) referred to the impact of climate change. Sadly, that issue, which we are confronting today, will have to be confronted more and more in this century. Rising sea levels and extreme weather conditions impact on coastal peoples causing natural disasters, with a world population that is now far more urbanised, and with many people and living in flood plains or on the coast. We need international mechanisms whereby we can intervene quickly and effectively in such cases.
	However, we do not live in a world of world government. We do not live in a world where the United Nations General Assembly or the United Nations Security Council can decide something and then it happens. There are almost 200 countries in the world, some with corrupt and incompetent Governments, some that are failed states, and some where the Governments are not incompetent, but rather are very effective at maintaining their power despite the wishes of their people or of the rest of the world. It is extremely frustrating when we know that intervention and assistance could make a huge difference to those millions of people, yet we do not have the means to intervene. There is therefore a real question to be confronted about how we strengthen international institutions and the rule of international law.
	The motion in the name of the Conservative party uses the phrase "international community" in its last sentence. I would ask what we mean by "international community". We have had a bit of a debate about the differences between the motion and the Government amendment. The Government amendment, interestingly, does not use that phrase. It talks about the United Nations. I am trying to tease out whether we are saying that the existing UN system is not able to deal with these issues. Does that mean that we should move towards a league of democracies that would act outside—my Scottish friends would say "outwith"—the international community? That issue is flagged up in an article in today's  Financial Times by the foreign policy adviser to Senator John McCain, Mr. Robert Kagan. I am very worried about that development, because we do not strengthen the ability to act, particularly in countries such as Burma, if we do not have the support of the growing major power in Asia, which is China, or of India. If we rely simply on the Australians, the New Zealanders, the Canadians, the United States and European Union countries, that will not be effective.
	Sadly, reference has been made to opposition within the UN Security Council to taking responsibility. That is not just China. It is also Russia and South Africa—a non-permanent member of the Security Council that seems to have taken a totally traditionalist attitude to non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. That is the traditional Communist party view from the 1970s, which seems to be influential in the Foreign Ministry of the Republic of South Africa. It is understandable, but it is not right, because in the world today we need the growing economic and political powers, the so-called BRICS—Brazil, India, China and South Africa—to work for the development of international institutions that work. They should not take a traditionalist view that would stop the more effective international organisations that we need to deal with such issues working.
	Even if we all agreed, however, we would still face a very difficult situation because we know that intervention is not always easy, and there are unintended consequences. Reference has been made to the no-fly zones in connection with the Kurds in Iraq. I think that John Major's Government deserved enormous credit for establishing that. It may have been said that it was in accordance with international law, but it is doubtful whether it was. Kosovo, too, comes to mind. Some people have said that the invasion in 1999 was illegal but legitimate. That was done with no UN Security Council authorisation or resolution, and we are still dealing with the consequences of that today with the developments in the Balkans, Serbia and the greater western Balkans.
	If there were to be intervention by the "international community", however defined, without a UN Security Council resolution, it would be contrary to the conditions laid down within the Canadian-sponsored commission, the UN Secretary-General's high-level panel and the UN General Assembly resolution of 2005. It was explicitly made clear in 2005 at the General Assembly that the principle of the responsibility to protect would be based on, first, each state having the responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, not from humanitarian disasters. Secondly, the principle is that if a state fails to discharge its responsibility, the international community has a responsibility to use peaceful means to protect the population, and it can also, on a case-by-case basis, as a last resort, and through the Security Council, issue a binding resolution or authorise the use of force if
	"national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations".
	There is perhaps an argument that by failing to assist in coping with this disaster, the regime in Burma is manifestly failing to protect its population.

Mike Gapes: Or worse. But the principle is that the Security Council has to issue a binding resolution. The Chinese and the Russians have at least to acquiesce in it. If that were not the case, any intervention would not be authorised by the UN system. That is important.
	Then we get to the question of practicalities. There was an interesting article by Bronwen Maddox yesterday in  The Times pointing out that even if there were a debate on these matters, the question of legality is irrelevant if the intervention would not improve the situation on the ground. We have heard the arguments about what the NGOs feel about whether air drops can be an effective way to send in the things that are needed. Even though there is a great desire, as there always is in such issues, for something to be done, we have to judge whether what is being proposed will make the situation more difficult to comply with, or whether it will assist.
	This is a difficult issue because, as has been recognised, we are not dealing with just a few days' or a few weeks' humanitarian assistance. There would have to be a huge commitment, perhaps lasting several years, particularly in areas that have are now under water and have been made impossible for human habitation, from which the populations have to be moved somewhere else and given a new start. That will require, presumably, the co-operation of the Government of the country concerned, or at least their acquiescence, while people come in and in effect take over and create a kind of safe haven. It might be argued that that was done with the northern no-fly zone in Iraq to protect the Kurds, and with the southern no-fly zone to protect the Shi'a population.
	Actions have consequences, so the term "responsibility to protect" needs to be clearly defined. Gareth Evans, the former Foreign Minister of Australia, who heads the international crisis group and who chaired the UN panel, is right to say that there are dangers in eroding the definition of what we mean. However, as Opposition Front Benchers pointed out, he also said that there might be circumstances in which such action was necessary. That is similar to the call of the French Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, for the international community to act.
	I will support the amendment. I believe that the Opposition tabled their motion with good intentions, but language such as "responsibility to protect" needs greater clarity. Otherwise, we may find that we undermine an important principle of dealing with humanitarian issues such as war crimes, stopping ethnic cleansing and other matters to which the UN resolution refers.
	In the next few weeks, I believe that the Chinese Government will have a decisive influence. I met the Chinese ambassador yesterday, and China is clearly exercised about its perception by the world—whether in the context of Tibet, Darfur, the Olympics or other issues, including the terrible earthquake and its consequences. The Chinese Government have moved into the 21st century in dealing with matters internationally. The Chinese Prime Minister did not do what President Putin did over the submarine Kursk, but went quickly to the area of the disaster. The Chinese Government openly and quickly publicised what was going on, and are prepared to accept international assistance, although they have the capability—and are showing that they have it—to help their people and deal with that enormous disaster.
	I hope that such a reaction will translate into Chinese foreign policy and influence some of China's traditional allies. However, the experience of South Africa shows that Foreign Ministries are sometimes the last redoubts of the conservatives. When domestic reforms happen, people are shunted off to Foreign Ministries—I do not believe that there are any parallels in this country—

Stephen Crabb: Forgive me, but I am not going to give way. I have just three or four minutes left.
	The fact that the senior general, the ruler of Burma, will not even pick up the phone to speak to the Secretary-General of the UN highlights the way in which the Burmese regime runs rings round the UN time and time again. We saw that from the way it played Ibrahim Gambari in discussions about political reform in Burma. We should be cautious about the amount of optimism we invest in UN processes. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury rightly highlighted the need for serious reform of international processes and institutions with regard to how we respond to such disasters.
	Mention has been made of the role that the Association of South East Asian Nations can play. It is easy to knock ASEAN; it did not behave as quickly as we would have liked and often dealing with it is a case of two steps forward, one step back—or one step forward and two steps back. That was certainly the case at the end of last year when many of us were initially optimistic that ASEAN would take a strong position on the political situation in Burma and the crackdown on democracy protestors, but in the end we were all slightly disappointed by the relatively weak stand that it took. However, ASEAN is important, and it is trying to assemble a mercy coalition to play some sort of effective role in the humanitarian effort in Burma. Rather than be critical of that, it is incumbent on Ministers and the Department to see what assistance they can provide to the ASEAN effort. The Secretary of State's Department is recognised as "top of the class" of governmental international aid Departments, and he should look at the assistance and advice that his Department can give to ASEAN's aid efforts. We want to see ASEAN play a much more productive and constructive role in Burma's affairs and this disaster perhaps provides an opportunity for it to do so.
	I will not go into the responsibility to protect, which numerous other speakers have covered.
	Genocide has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). In the early days of the disaster last week, even Liberal Democrat Front Benchers were talking about genocide, in the context of the regime's initial response. Genocide had been talked about in connection with the Burmese regime long before the disaster struck. Back in June 2006, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) tabled a question asking the Minister responsible at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office whether the Burmese regime's acts against the ethnic peoples there amounted to genocide. On that occasion, the Government did not take definite position. In October 2006, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) tabled a similar question, again asking whether the actions of the regime in Burma amounted to genocide or an intent to commit genocide. Again, the Minister concerned did not quite take a clear position.
	Many of us hold the view that the behaviour of the regime in recent years amounts to genocide and a clear intention to commit genocide. The regime has strong genocidal tendencies, as has been demonstrated again in recent days.
	We cannot quite neatly separate the humanitarian issues from the political issues when we talk about the disaster in Burma of the past seven days. They are bundled up together. Indeed, I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is sitting on the Front Bench this afternoon, because I know that she takes a deep personal interest in the issue. Her presence serves as a reminder that the political issues are wrapped up with the international development issues.
	Our hope is that we get a more effective and systematic humanitarian effort up and running. The aid getting through is nothing like enough to bring relief to the people of Burma. However, there is a bigger hope beyond that—that the tragic events of the past week will somehow lead to a new outlook, particularly on the part of the younger generation of Burmese rulers, who will come through when that group of ageing, corrupt and abhorrent generals finally has its day. As has been the case in other parts of the world, disasters have led to political reform. My hope is that once we get through the immediate humanitarian response, there will be a political sea change in Burma.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I now have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day, on a Question relating to immigration.
	The Ayes were 51, the Noes were 354, so the motion was negatived..
	I shall also announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day on a Question relating to local government. The Ayes were 240, the Noes were 158, so the motion was agreed to.
	 [The Division List s  are published at the end of today's debates.]

Richard Burden: Given the scale of the suffering in the Irrawaddy delta, the main focus must obviously be on how to convey aid and relief to that area. However, as a number of Members have pointed out today, Burma was already suffering major humanitarian problems affecting hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people and others, many of them in areas not adjacent to the Irrawaddy delta. Can my hon. Friend give some reassurance about the levels of aid and the mechanisms that will allow it to reach those other areas? The spread of disease and other problems there will be equally great in a few weeks, if not in days.

Meg Munn: I am sorry, but I need to make progress.
	The crucial factor in any natural disaster is the response of the Government. If a Government care, make plans and organise a response, people will survive; if not, they will die. That is why we continue to back the plan to persuade the Burmese Government to provide unfettered access for aid workers, whether through the UN or through countries in the region, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (John Battle) has said. My noble Friend Lord Malloch-Brown and the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Malik), are in the region seeking to persuade people there. We are convinced that the most effective way to deal with this tragedy and to save lives is to persuade the Burmese authorities to accept the help coming from the rest of the world, and to do so through intensive and urgent diplomatic activity, and particularly through targeting countries with influence over the regime.
	China has been mentioned, and it is in a key position both to influence the Burmese regime to open up and to facilitate practical support on the ground. China has publicly called for aid to be let into Burma, but it can do much more to persuade Burma to allow more international workers on the ground and direct distribution of aid to the delta region. The Foreign Secretary spoke to his Chinese counterpart yesterday, pressing on the subject of the regime's unacceptably slow response. China and other UN Security Council members have been asked by the UK to discuss the serious situation in Burma.
	The Association of South East Asian Nations Foreign Ministers will meet on Monday, and we have been lobbying them to help improve this situation and to put pressure on Burma to increase the number of visas granted. There has been some increase, but not as much as is needed.
	The Opposition raised the issue of a forward bridgehead. We have discussed with countries such as Thailand what they can do to address such issues. I do not want to spend too long on the subject of air drops, which has been discussed. We have not ruled anything out, but I think that hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), have set out the problems that might result. The scale of the disaster requires a full international civilian operation, like the ones we saw after the tsunami and the Pakistan earthquake, and for that we need the co-operation of the Burmese authorities. That must remain the principal focus of our efforts.
	The "responsibility to protect" was raised by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South in particular. There is no doubt that the Burmese Government have a responsibility to act now to help save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Burma's people who are suffering after the cyclone. As we have said, we rule nothing out. We will continue to argue vigorously in New York for UN Security Council engagement.
	Let me be clear why we tabled our amendment. It focuses on what we are seeking to achieve:
	"to secure access and ensure aid is delivered to those in need."
	That is why the amendment should be supported, and I ask the Opposition to consider the matter carefully. The motion risks suggesting that the UK will pursue the responsibility to protect above all else, rather than our actual focus, which is on any means that will secure the outcome that we all seek.
	Unfortunately, the situation for Burma remains extremely grave. A great deal is being done by international organisations, our ambassador on the ground, the Department for International Development and non-governmental organisations, and we must all place on record our thanks to them. However, until there is a response from regional actors and ASEAN putting pressure on the regime, we will not get the outcome that we want to see.
	There has been a great deal of agreement in this debate; everybody wants to see the Burmese Government open up their country so that help for the people who desperately need it most can get through. I ask hon. Members to support our amendment.

Jane Kennedy: I have been listening very carefully to the points that my hon. Friend and other Members have been making about retrospectivity. As Members know, this will be legislated for in the Finance Bill of 2009, so there will be ample time for us to discuss the issue on many occasions before then.
	The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) made a point about small businesses. Small businesses using vehicles are no different from other users of such vehicles. I hear his point, but many families also have no choice in that they need a car to travel to work or to school. I do not believe that we ought to have a specific measure to help people in small businesses.
	It has been claimed that moving existing cars bought after 1 March 2001 into the new VED bands in 2009 is some form of stealth tax. As has been pointed out, the Budget states—this quote comes from page 121 of the Red Book:
	"With effect from 1 April 2009...VED for cars, registered on or after 1 March 2001, will be reformed to include six new bands."
	There is not a lot that is very stealthy about that. How stealthy can it be, given that we are debating it today and Members raised it during the debate on the Budget and in Committee of the Whole House? Indeed, I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West make his point on the matter in his usual forceful and thoughtful way in that debate.

Richard Burden: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). Some of what I intend to say takes up the themes that he articulated. Like him, I was disappointed to get to the end of the speech by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) no wiser about the Conservatives' proposals, as opposed to their criticisms. That is a shame, because VED raises real and complex questions about how we should deal with motor vehicle taxation. If we are honest, what we should all be trying to do is to reconcile a range of competing and often contradictory pressures and considerations.
	How do we frame policies that ensure that the production and use of motor vehicles—not much has been said about production, but it is part of the issue—play their part in meeting the challenge of climate change? In doing so, we must also recognise the strategic importance of the UK motor industry and the specific aspects of the automotive industry in which we excel. That is sometimes an uncomfortable matter in a debate such as this because we are often talking about niche production, performance engineering and luxury car production, and how to ensure that the industry is not undermined. That also applies to jobs outside manufacturing but in the automotive industry, whether in retail, after sales and the used-car market.
	How do we incentivise drivers to use their vehicles in a more environmentally sensitive fashion and how do we improve public transport alternatives to inappropriate car use? How do we persuade people that environmental performance is an important factor to be considered when they buy a new car or a used car?
	How we do all that is a complicated issue, particularly when we have to feed into it the issue of ability to pay, particularly at a time of rising fuel prices globally, and how to recognise that for some people, whether in their work or where they live, owning or driving a car is not a luxury, but an essential component of mobility for themselves and their families.
	The first issue to consider is that the increase in the number of VED bands in the Budget was generally welcomed across the board, a point that has not received much attention so far today. That was welcomed in that it delivered a less blunt instrument for classifying the environmental impact of different models in terms of influencing customer choice. The review led by Professor Julia King at Aston university in Birmingham talks about other ways in which the tax disc could be used to incentivise different forms of behaviour. For example, tax discs could be colour coded to show much more clearly the environmental performance of different vehicles. There are also lessons to be learned from experience gained from the colour coding of the results of crash testing regulations.
	I have some particular concerns that I hope the Exchequer Secretary will address when she replies. The first is the new car/used car issue, on which I will strike a slightly different note. I worry about the so-called showroom tax that is to be paid on less fuel efficient cars bought from new. There is a year-on-year increase in fuel efficiency for virtually every new model. This year's model will be more fuel efficient than the same model produced last year, the year before that or the year before that. To increase the tax on a model simply because it is new, could have the perverse impact of making it more expensive to run even though it is more environmentally efficient than an older model. For the same reason, in principle there is not much logic in the argument that particular vehicles should be exempt from the taxation consequences of their performance simply because they are three or four years old if the objective is to incentivise different forms of driver and customer behaviour. It does not address the issue of ability to pay and the ability to buy different cars—which are real issues—but to say on environmental grounds that cars should be exempt because they are older does not stand up to close scrutiny. However, we must be careful in terms of the ability to pay. We must also be careful about the impact on residual values and on the used car market, which is an important part of the industry.
	I am not sure that VED is the best way of incentivising or disincentivising driver and customer behaviour because VED is not related to use. If someone has a 1300 cc car and they do not keep it well serviced, but use it every day, even for the shortest, most inappropriate runs, their impact on the environment and on CO2 will be greater than if they had a niche sports car of the kind in which the UK excels, although most of us cannot afford such cars, and they only took it out on rare occasions. Therefore, it seems that we need to relate incentives and disincentives to issues of use, not simply to issues of ownership. The hon. Member for Twickenham is right: that probably means doing something with fuel taxes or relating some form of road user charging to the environmental performance of models. I cannot think of another way of doing it. Those are the issues that the Conservative party must deal with if it is serious about using green taxes and including motor vehicles in that approach.
	I would like to make some suggestions. One is on VED. The King review talked about colour coding to establish and to make clear the environmental performance of cars. We could also look at how to use VED and the tax disc to link up and to promote the use of public transport and the use of a particular car. There are lessons from the use of the Oyster card about whether buying a tax disc could also provide the individual with a passport to public transport as well as being applicable to the individual car. That is an area we could look at.
	It is right that rigorous regulation requiring industry, including the motor industry, to improve performance should be important to the general debate on the environment. Indeed, the motor industry has done a lot already. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders' sustainability report shows what has been done in production processes and in the recycling of vehicles, as well in terms of the performance of vehicles themselves. However, if we introduce regulation, it must be logical. That is why I hope that we will continue to keep a close eye on some of the EU regulations currently being shaped that enable manufacturers that produce lots of models, some with quite poor environmental performance, to be subject to fewer penalties, as long as they also produce other cars that have smaller engines. Such would be the impact because those penalties are measured across the car fleet of the manufacturer. A penalty is imposed on manufacturers not for producing less fuel efficient cars, but for being a smaller company producing less efficient cars. In other words, a company such as Fiat, the Italian company that produces Ferraris, would be hit less under that regulation, unless certain safeguards are built in, than Aston Martin, a British company based in the UK. Why? Because Fiat owns Ferrari and Aston Martin is an independent company. That would be the only difference. That is illogical.
	At present the Commission is proposing an exemption threshold for companies producing fewer than 10,000 vehicles per year. Below that they would be exempt from some of the penalties. I know that the Minister and the Government are pressing for the retention of that exemption. I say hold firm on that one—it is important to the British niche vehicle industry.
	Unfortunately, that exemption on its own does not meet the needs of another important British company: Jaguar Land Rover, on which thousands of jobs depend in my region in the west midlands and the north-west. It will face big penalties as a result of those regulations simply because it is becoming independent of Ford and is therefore not part of a bigger group. I ask the Minister to continue to work closely with Jaguar Land Rover to ensure that the EU regulations that come in do not have the kind of perverse effect that I have described.

Martin Salter: Although I am critical of the Government's proposals, I will not join the Conservatives in the Lobby tonight, as they will not be surprised to hear. That is not just because this is an Opposition day debate but because of the sheer hypocrisy of their position. They accuse the Government's proposals for graduated vehicle excise duty of being dressed up as an environmental measure but solely designed to increase and raise tax revenue, yet when the Conservatives propose precisely the same policy it is apparently the work of environmental visionaries that we should follow and that should lead the debate.
	I do not think that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), for whom I have great affection, has claimed to be an environmentalist, but he has claimed not to be a climate change denier. That rings rather hollow if one reads his blog of 4 April 2008—my excellent researchers have fetched it for me. The opening paragraph begins:
	"Anyone in power who believes that global warming is happening".
	Those are not the words of someone at the forefront of the environmental movement. I remember the right hon. Gentleman saying, "Who believes it's happening?", as if it is not. I remember public quotes from him—I have not been able to dig them out so I will have to rely on my memory—about not being able to identify the 4x4s that are "allegedly" responsible for contributing to global warming. There is a deep brand of scepticism about the entire climate change agenda in parts of the Conservative party, and we need to recognise that.
	That does not necessarily apply to the leader of the Conservative party, who has been very forthright about the subject. On the "Andrew Marr Show" on 7 October, he said:
	"You can see the very strong commitment to the environment and yes, green taxes, as a share of taxes do need to go up. That's not necessarily popular, but I think it's right."
	He is absolutely right—it is not necessarily popular but it is the right thing to do. The question for the Opposition, if they want to walk the walk and look like a Government in waiting, is this: when will it be the right thing to do and time to come off the fence? At the moment, the Conservative party has an interesting and comprehensive document—I will give it that. It is the quality of life document, which was put together by Zac Goldsmith and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), and it has three specific proposals that relate to the matters we are debating. It says:
	"It is therefore necessary to be much more subtle in the way we design taxes so that they achieve their ends with the least possible pain...Fiscal incentives for environmental improvement can be highly flexible, applied to industry, as in the case of the Landfill Tax, or aimed at directly influencing consumer behaviour, such as the banded system of Vehicle Excise Duty."
	The Conservative motion, unless I am reading it wrongly, effectively seeks to scrap the banded system of vehicle excise duty. The document goes on to commend purchase tax:
	"In contrast, an emissions-related tax directly at the point of purchase would increase the price differential between clean and polluting new cars more steeply. Such a tax could be phased in over time as automakers respond by bringing a greater range of efficient cars to market."
	It then recommends graduated VAT of between 5 and 17.5 per cent. on new vehicles.
	On vehicle excise duty, the document could not have been clearer:
	"We recommend more modest changes in VED, aimed primarily at influencing the used car market where annual running costs comprise a larger proportion of total costs. These levels of VED may also lead to slower depreciation rates for cleaner cars, thus indirectly influencing new purchase decisions. On this basis we propose increasing the VED differential between the top and bottom bands of emissions performance, capped at a maximum of £500."
	That £500 figure is considerably more than the Government are proposing. There will come a time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) said, when the Conservatives will have to come off the fence, grasp the bullet and adopt some policies rather than make interesting suggestions.
	The motion shows that the Conservatives are prepared to will the end but not the means, and I look forward to a time when they come up with clear, substantial and coherent policy. I believe that the motion misses the point. It calls for the abolition of increases in vehicle excise duty instead of addressing the point of concern for those in my party and elsewhere in the country, which is the retrospective nature of the policy. For Labour MPs, it is the retrospective nature of the measures, with the abolition of the 2006 exemption, that is the nub of the argument.
	I agree wholeheartedly with the graded vehicle excise duty—in fact, I was one of the Back Benchers who lobbied for the proposal when I first came to this place. It has made a difference by informing consumer choices. I agree with incentives to make green choices pay. I would go as far as loading purchase taxes quite heavily on new gas guzzlers, with bans of 4x4s from residential streets, if necessary, and higher charges for the most polluting vehicles. I have no problem with incentivising green choices and with making it more expensive to do the wrong thing by the environment. However, I do not agree—and I hope that this came across in the interventions that I and other colleagues made—with denying to the people who can least afford it the opportunity to make an informed and empowered choice in favour of the environment and their family budgets.
	We saw the problems concerning the 10p tax, and we have seen the steps that the Government were rightly prepared to take to put £120 back into the pockets of basic rate taxpayers. Some of the increases in vehicle excise duty rates are in line with that £120 figure; people will certainly be forced to pay £90. It is quite simple to me: we can talk about choice, but choice is always an option for the rich. People on low incomes do not change their car every year or two. They need longer than from now until 2010 to make the changes necessary to cut vehicle emissions without being penalised by higher car tax. I speak as patron of the Berkshire Multiple Sclerosis Therapy Centre, which the right hon. Member for Wokingham will know of. I see constituents of mine and his who scrimp and save to run an old Ford Transit van into which they can run a wheelchair to get the dignity that mobility gives them. Do we really want to hit those people? Do we not want to give people with large families, people on low incomes and people with mobility or disability problems an opportunity to make the informed choice that the timescale currently envisaged in the measure simply does not allow?
	That is why I urge my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to reflect carefully on representations on the issue from people who truly are her friends, because there is time to put things right. There is time to phase in, if necessary, the different bands. There is time to end the retrospective nature of the measures, which is fundamentally wrong.
	My final point is about the public's capacity to accept green taxes. In this cynical age, we should all be wary of destroying the credibility of green taxation as an environmental tool, if the public consider the measures that we propose to be either unfair or unclear. I do not often do this, but I commend to hon. Members a bit of reading from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website, which is a snappily titled document called "A Framework for Pro-Environmental Behaviours". It makes depressing reading for those of us who genuinely believe in climate change and who want to lead the public debate and change public attitudes.
	Sadly, only 18 per cent. of the public fit into the category of "committed environmentalist". That might be okay when it comes to voting in local elections, but it is certainly not okay when it comes to doing the right thing. What we learn from the survey is that the public are prepared to recycle more, take a tough line against manufacturers that produce excessive packaging and use recycled light bulbs, because they can see that doing so will save them money. But are they prepared to drive less, fly less or be unnecessarily penalised in their pockets? Sadly, they are not at this stage. However, they need to be, and we need to get them there, because climate change is one of the most serious issues facing our planet.
	If we want to undermine the necessary measures in the Climate Change Bill to cut our carbon emissions by 60 or even 80 per cent. by 2050, which we all support, we will do so by being unclear or engendering opposition or a sense of unfairness and cynicism about the policies that we put forward in favour of that agenda.
	In conclusion, let me say this to Conservatives Members. You have been shallow and opportunistic, because once again you have been found out willing the ends, but not the means. But you are not all wrong—

Sammy Wilson: I shall support the motion tonight for two reasons. First, the Minister has said that this is a green tax designed to change behaviour, yet if we look at how it was introduced, we see that it happened without any warning. Furthermore, the Chancellor suggested that the increase in VED would affect hardly anyone, that the majority of people would be unaffected and that there would be nothing to worry about. We now know, of course, that more than 16 million motorists will be affected by the year 2010.
	If the Government are to introduce measures to change people's behaviour, surely the first thing that they should do is spell out those measures, and their consequences. They should then seek to persuade people to do something different. They should not do that by stealth. We were told that these were taxes to change behaviour—but the way in which they were introduced makes it clear that, rather than being behaviour-changing taxes, they were simply a cynical attempt to exploit the hysteria about the role of CO2 emissions in climate change.
	Secondly, the Minister told us that even when these taxes have been made, the impact on CO2 emissions will be very little—less than a fraction of 1 per cent. That is based on the assumption that people will sell their CO2-emitting cars and opt for cars that emit less. That assumption, of course, as hon. Members have pointed out, is based on a false premise—that many of those who own those cars have the ability to sell them and buy a different car. It is quite clear from what hon. Members have said in the debate that many of the people involved are from low-income families and have bought old cars because those are all that they can afford, and large cars because they have families.

Justine Greening: It is a pleasure to conclude the debate on behalf of the Opposition. We called this debate because the Government have been caught out yet again. They are now planning to pickpocket from the purses of millions of people in our country—and this time that means motorists, many of whom are the least able to afford it. Much of the discussion about who has lost out from this year's Budget has focused on the 10p tax rate fiasco and the 5.3 million households that the Prime Minister was happy to target last year—until he was found out.
	Today we have the chance to voice the concerns of millions of other Budget losers—the millions of motorists who are paying graduated vehicle excise duty on cars bought after March 2001. Many of them will see their car tax rise by up to £245 a year by 2010-11. In fact, they may well be some of the people from the 5.3 million households that the Prime Minister and Chancellor stung for more income tax—before yesterday's spectacular U-turn.
	The story of those motorists and their experience of this Government and tax is almost a case study of Government policy at its worst. It is ineffective, it is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said, cynical, and it is also, I think, underhand. The Government's approach to vehicle excise duty was, as ever, "What can we get away with?" We have seen it in so many areas, but especially in tax. In fact, VED was not really a major part of this year's Budget speech. It would not have been, because it was a tax rise. We were assured by the Chancellor, however, that
	"the road tax system should do more to support the use of more carbon-efficiency",
	and that there should be
	"an incentive to encourage drivers to choose the least polluting car."—[ Official Report, 12 March 2008; Vol. 473, c. 297.]
	Those were the Chancellor's words in this year's Budget speech.
	Behind the rhetoric, however, the Government's real approach to vehicle excise duty is characteristic of their approach to environmental taxation in general, providing another chance to tax people more. I can tell the Minister on behalf of my constituents and the public who have contacted me after seeing stories in various newspapers—we heard about one constituent earlier—that they feel this is a disgraceful way to treat the British public. It is claimed, of course, that this tax will help save the environment. The VED changes can be found in the "Protecting the environment" part of the Red Book. However, we now know that Treasury officials told the Government that they could expect the policy to reduce motor vehicle emissions by only a fraction of 1 per cent. by 2020. This policy is not about tackling climate change.
	Of the 4 million extra cars that the Government assume will pay graduated VED by 2010-11, guess how many they assume will be in band A? Just 11. The number will rise from 395 in 2008-09 to 406 by 2010-11. I thought the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) put it very well when he said that it would be helpful to understand the assumptions on which the Government have come up with such amazingly and shockingly low figures in describing the impact of the policy on the environment. But, as we know, ultimately the policy was not intended to have an impact on the environment; it was intended to have an impact on Exchequer revenues. These measures were all about bringing in more tax.
	According to page 89 of the Red Book,
	"As a result of these changes the majority of drivers will be better or no worse off".
	In my view, that was a real and possibly deliberate misrepresentation of the policy. We now know that when the Government referred to "the majority of drivers" they meant the majority of all drivers, irrespective of whether they were paying graduated VED. They lumped in all the 10 million extra drivers who do not pay it. They based their statement on the fact that 26 million drivers pay VED, but of those only 16 million pay graduated VED. They used sleight of hand to suggest that people would be unaffected, when that was not the case. That is a bit like the Government saying that they will raise inheritance tax but only 2 per cent. of people will be affected, simply because 98 per cent. of people will not have died by the end of the year.
	When we look at the figures, the position is pretty straightforward. Of the 15.5 million motorists who pay graduated VED this year, more than 10 million will pay more, and 12.2 million will pay more by 2010-11. The people who are worse off include people with family cars such as Ford Mondeos or Renault Méganes, and even people with cars as small as the Nissan Micra. Perhaps most disgracefully of all—we have talked about this a great deal—the people who are worse off also include people who bought cars between March 2001 and March 2006. They never thought that they would be affected by the changes in VED and graduated VED. That is one of the reasons for the sharp rise in VED revenues from graduated VED over the next couple of years. It is due to the Government's abolition of the 2006 exemption, which was obviously introduced specifically to exclude those people.
	Did the Chancellor announce that in the Red Book? No. Did he explain it in the Red Book? No, it was buried in the fine print. As we have heard, a Treasury spokesman eventually admitted that it was not as clear as it could have been. It was not explicitly spelt out that the drivers hit by the backdating of the policy, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham pointed out in a well-judged speech, would be people with older cars. We know that because those cars are now higher-tax cars, they are worth less second hand. That point was made by the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter). It is likely to affect people from lower-income families, the elderly and the young, who—unlike many others—may not be able to afford to buy new cars whenever they need them
	The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) spoke of the impact on his constituents. The reality is that the Government are again hitting those who can least afford it, and can least afford to change their behaviour. Ministers know that, because it later came to light that the new backdating of graduated VED would happen over two years because of the transition from band K to band L. That transition was not even mentioned in the Red Book, and emerged only when the Treasury was questioned more explicitly about how the changes in graduated VED could possibly leave so many drivers unaffected. Millions of motorists are suffering a tax increase.
	Having said in the 2007 Budget that band F drivers' bills would increase by, say, £5 a year up to 2010, the Treasury has gone back on its promise and is raising graduated VED massively, in a way that was never explained to people in advance. So the Chancellor is going back on the Prime Minister's word, giving people the mistaken impression that most will not have to pay more, and that they might even be better off, hiding this backdating of the tax from the new motorists paying it, and making no mention of Government efforts to spread the pain of these newly taxed motorists over two years.
	The Government say that this policy is about the environment and motorists changing their behaviour, but as the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) asked, how does the Exchequer Secretary expect the public to change their behaviour when she hides every aspect of these changes in VED from them? The answer is that people are not meant to be able to react to the changes, which is why the Government are not even pretending that emissions will drop as a result of these VED changes in the Budget. This is just another big fat tax hike perversely aimed at the people who can least afford it. It is a double whammy for the motorists captured by the backdating, because not only will they pay more tax, but their cars will be worth less if they try to get out of this tax trap by selling them. It is utterly deplorable to hit those people when their cost of living is rising so much.
	One thing we and the British public know is that this Prime Minister and this Government are never straight with them, and he is not on their side. We are, which is why we are standing up for the public and against this eco-stealth tax brought forward by a Government who are simply out of touch—and when voters get given a chance, they will be out of office.

Angela Eagle: No, I have been left nine minutes in which to speak, so I cannot give way.
	The hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) said that the figures for who is better or worse off were based on graduated VED alone. That is not correct; they are based on all motorists. These reforms incentivise people to drive cleaner cars, helping to protect the environment, and they reward people who decide to choose not necessarily a different class or model of car, but often just the cleanest version of the model that they wish to drive. As has been said, drivers of 24 of the 30 most popular cars in the UK will pay less, or no more VED, as a result of these changes. Popular versions of cars that will pay less include the Ford Focus, the Renault Clio, the Vauxhall Astra and the Citroen Xsara Picasso. This is not an attack on the family car.
	Myth three is that the change will hit low-income families the hardest; that has been suggested by many Opposition Members. It will not. Lower-income families are less likely to own a car than the rest of the population; indeed, most of the poorest 20 per cent. of households do not own a car. Moreover, Lower-income families who do own a car are more likely to own older cars, from before 2001, which are not affected by the new VED bands at all; that represents one third of all cars in the UK. Lower-income families are not the most likely to buy the most polluting cars because they tend to be the most expensive, because of their larger engines. The majority of low-income families will therefore be either unaffected or better off. This is not a tax rise for most motorists, or a tax rise that hits the poorest, nor is it a tax rise that hits the average family car.
	The interesting thing about today's debate was the announcement by the Conservative party that it will reverse the VED changes that we have outlined. The Conservatives did not enlighten us by telling us how they would reverse the changes or what they would put in their place. That gives no environmental signal or certainty whatever. The Conservatives did say that there would be no environmental taxes from them that did not hypothecate the revenue into a special fund. It seems to me that their environmental credentials are falling apart.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:——
	 The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 284.

Nia Griffith: I would like to thank my hon. Friend, who has done outstanding work as chair of the all-party carers group, for raising that issue. It certainly has an enormous impact on the whole family if people have to make frequent journeys over long distances to access the treatment that the family member with muscular dystrophy needs.
	We need to recognise that even in the areas where excellent services are in place, people can often be vulnerable, given their dependence on a handful of leading clinicians who in time may move on or retire. I therefore ask the Minister what steps he will take to work with the commissioners of health services and health professionals to improve current service provision across the UK. In particular, what will he do to press the devolved Assemblies and local commissioners of health services to ensure that all patients are able to access specialist diagnostic services and specialist multidisciplinary services across the UK to ensure that adequate diagnosis and care is provided for these complex diseases?
	I pay tribute to the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign for its hard work in producing the report, "Building on the Foundations: Focus on Physio", which includes responses from 75 primary care trusts and 122 NHS trusts to date. The key findings of the report include the fact that many patients with neuromuscular conditions do not receive continuous, specialist physiotherapy or any physiotherapy at all. In some areas, local provision is very poor. It notes that current referral practices, particularly for adults with neuromuscular conditions, seem arbitrary and show considerable variation for patients. We certainly heard that in the evidence given to the Welsh Affairs Committee.
	The report also notes that adults with neuromuscular conditions, principally young adults making the transition from paediatric to adult care, face particular difficulties. That is a matter of concern to me because we know that, at that time in their lives, those people are often going through many stressful changes, perhaps from the education system to a workplace scenario, which can be a very difficult time for them socially, educationally and medically.
	Where there are specialist physiotherapy services, many are vulnerable because they rely on voluntary sector funding, and many physiotherapists are denied opportunities to attend training courses relating to neuromuscular conditions. Sadly, there is a lack of guidelines and standards of care for people with neuromuscular conditions.
	Let me be more precise. What can my hon. Friend the Minister do to ensure that all children and adults with neuromuscular conditions are offered, and have access to, ongoing and timely physiotherapy, including hydrotherapy, when they need it? In particular, what action can he take to ensure that specialised commissioning groups, acute trusts and local health boards have a better understanding of the positive impact that physiotherapy has on the health and well-being of people with neuromuscular conditions, and to press them to give more physiotherapists support and training in muscular dystrophy and related conditions as part of their continuing professional development programmes?
	How will my hon. Friend ensure that a multidisciplinary service is in place for the care of patients with neuromuscular conditions, and how will he encourage specialised commissioning groups to establish neuromuscular working groups to undertake reviews of local services following the lead in the south-west? Any such review should include a gap analysis of physiotherapy services for patients with neuromuscular conditions.
	Clearly it is not for my hon. Friend to tell the Welsh Assembly how to organise the service in Wales; that is rightly within the powers of the Assembly Health Minister and her colleagues in the Welsh Assembly Government. Nevertheless, there can be huge benefits in sharing ideas and training across the whole of the United Kingdom, and in the case of muscular dystrophy, sufferers from Wales are currently accessing services in England. With that in mind, will my hon. Friend discuss the best way forward with colleagues in the Welsh Assembly Government, and will he ensure that there are no obstacles on the English side for patients from Wales who wish to access appropriate services in England? Will he also agree to meet me and representatives from the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign to discuss the evidence that has been uncovered as part of the charity's "Building on the Foundations: Focus on Physio" is a part?
	Modern treatments and care have facilitated huge steps forward in increasing life expectancy and improving the quality of life for people with muscular dystrophy, but we must ensure that the very best packages are provided routinely for muscular dystrophy sufferers wherever they live. Some of the detail of the report is quite distressing. We learn that three out of four of 122 NHS trusts and two out of three of 74 primary care trusts do not provide ongoing physiotherapy for patients with muscular dystrophy and related conditions, that half the trusts do not have physiotherapists available for children, that two out of three do not have physiotherapists available for adults with specific training in muscular dystrophy and related neuromuscular conditions, and that 20 per cent. fail to provide financial support for physiotherapists to attend training courses in muscular dystrophy and related conditions. With that distressing picture in mind, we must ensure that we put the position right, and that muscular dystrophy sufferers and their families do not have the additional burden of fighting for funding or coping with excessive travelling if there is any way that that can be avoided.
	We must understand that we are not talking about people coping with a one-off acute medical condition. We are talking about an integral part of the daily and yearly struggle to maintain the best quality of life possible, and we should want nothing but the best for our fellow citizens who are living with muscular dystrophy. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Ivan Lewis: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) on securing a debate on a very important issue. It is particularly important to families who must cope with the realities of muscular dystrophy. I have experience in my constituency of a couple, Mr. and Mrs. Levene, whose young son Joey has Duchenne muscular dystrophy. They are a remarkable couple, because not only are they coping with Joey's condition, but they have established a charity to raise significant sums of money to invest in new research into the condition. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I would like to use this opportunity to pay tribute to them for making a tremendous difference by raising funds to invest in research.
	We are all aware that neuromuscular services do not always adequately meet the needs of people with long-term conditions, not least the estimated 30,000 people living with muscular dystrophy, their families and carers. Three recent hard-hitting reports published by the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign into the provision of neuromuscular services in England and Wales and access to physiotherapy services highlight the significant variations that still exist for those living in some areas of England and Wales. In particular, these reports detail the problems that some patients with muscular dystrophy continue to have in getting access to, and funding for, the specialist neuromuscular services that can make such a difference to their standard of care and quality of life. It is clearly unacceptable that there are still such large variations in care, and that access to specialist diagnosis, treatment and on-going care services can far too often still depend on where people happen to live.
	It is important that we are clear about what people have a right to expect—access to health professionals with an understanding of their medical condition and individual needs; timely access to the appropriate specialist neurological services and equipment; information on their condition, communicated in a more sensitive and understanding way; and close involvement for carers and families. We should recognise that in these circumstances it is the family member who in the end provides most of the care and support, and that they need both practical and emotional support.
	There are a number of issues in terms of the specific point raised by my hon. Friend, and addressed in the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign reports, that specialised neuromuscular services should be designated in accordance with the Department's specialised services definition set so that specialised commissioning groups can strategically plan for these services across the whole of England. The national specialist commissioning group advises Ministers on which services are best commissioned nationally, rather than locally. The criteria used are that the service should involve a small number of patients and procedures—under 400 nationally per year—and that the service can be provided at a small number of specialist centres serving a catchment population of about 1 million. Specialised services can also be commissioned regionally by the 10 specialised commissioning groups that are based around regional strategic health authority boundaries. There is a national definitions set of 32 specialised services to assist SCGs, and SCGs can commission services outside that list; it is up to individual SCGs as to whether they decide to designate additional specialist service providers in their patch, and if so, for what services. The south-west commissioning group has, for example, established a neuromuscular working group with a specific remit to review local services.

Ivan Lewis: What I am happy to say to my hon. Friend is that that is best practice and we would hope that in every part of the country where there are clear inadequacies in the level of support and services, regional SHAs would look at the south-west model and ensure they learn from that in terms of the way they act in their region. It is not for me as a Minister to direct every SHA and primary care trust as to how they ought to approach these issues, but it is clear that existing services are in many cases inadequate, and it is a good principle that if the south-west model demonstrates a sensible way forward, each region should follow it.
	It is for NHS commissioners to ensure that commissioned pathways of care always reflect both the specialist diagnosis needs and localised multidisciplinary packages of care. PCT commissioners need to commission services that reflect the local needs of their patients and be informed of good practice in other health economies. I agree with my hon. Friend that dialogue between Wales and England on these matters would be sensible, and I am certainly willing to facilitate it.
	We recognise that world-class commissioning is at the heart of our health service's capacity to achieve better outcomes for patients and better value for money, which is why we are driving the notion of world-class commissioning through the health service. We want such commissioning to become a reality in every community, because that is clearly not the case at the moment.
	In improving the commissioning of services, the establishment of local involvement networks is important. They will play a key role in encouraging and enabling a wide range of people to influence the commissioning and provision of health and social care, bringing real accountability to the whole system, from commissioning to direct provision. It is important that part of how we improve services is by giving a much stronger collective voice to local populations and local groups associated with specific conditions. They can influence the decision makers in the health and social care service to ensure that services are more responsive. We cannot simply leave this to managers, bureaucrats or professionals; we need to find ways of ensuring that the voice of those who know best about such conditions is heard.
	My hon. Friend raised the specific issue of access to physiotherapy services, and she emphasised their distinct importance for those living with muscular dystrophy. It is important to point out that record levels have been invested in the NHS and that there has been a major expansion in its work force, for example, the number of physiotherapists employed in the NHS has increased by 41 per cent. since autumn 1997, to pick a random date.
	The White Paper, "Our health, our care, our say", sets out the future direction for health care, including access to allied health professions. The Government are collaborating with the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy to pilot and evaluate self-referral to physiotherapy, and we await the report of that evaluation. There is a sense that it is often difficult to access the service, so simplifying things and allowing people to self-refer will provide expanded access to physio services.
	The national framework for long-term conditions was published in March 2005 and has a 10-year implementation period. It sets 11 quality requirements to improve treatment, care and support from diagnosis to the end of life for people living with neurological conditions, including muscular dystrophy. It underlines the need for appropriate, integrated services planned and delivered around individual needs, and the need to support people in living as independently as possible with the best possible quality of life.
	The national service framework is based on the best of the NHS's core values: modernisation; breaking down professional boundaries; and partnership between agencies. Although it focuses on improving services for people with neurological conditions, people who have other long-term conditions will also be supported to live a full and independent life. Achieving the standards set out in the national service framework is a major challenge for some local providers. There are no central targets or milestones, and it will instead be for people working at local level, on the front line, to ensure that their commissioning decisions truly reflect the NSF's principles.
	Since the NSF's publication, the Department has provided service planners, commissioners and providers with guidance, expert advice and support to help them deliver the quality requirements. However, in line with our policy of devolving responsibility to local organisations, we are moving to a phase with much greater emphasis on local accountability and local autonomy. Our approach also recognises that the NSF cannot be a stand-alone priority; it needs to be closely aligned and integrated into mainstream NHS and social services local activity.
	Importantly, the Berlin wall between health and social care came down a long time ago, but, sadly, patients and their families in too many communities tell us that the Berlin wall between different agencies prevents them from getting the easy-to-access services that they need and deserve. As has been mentioned by Labour Members, they also tell us that there are sometimes too many professionals fishing about in people's lives and that people want continuity of care, care co-ordination and a lead professional who takes responsibility for examining all the family's needs. It is incredibly important that we position how we deal with this condition in the context of what we are trying to do with health and social care more generally.
	Just this year, the Department, in collaboration with the third sector, published the "National Service Framework for Long-term Neurological Conditions—National Support for Local Implementation 2008". It outlines the Department's NSF programme, including how much progress we have made so far and the milestones for the work that we still have to do. It offers people support at a local level in terms of best practice for how they can improve services. It has also received input from voluntary organisations, which are often ahead of the NHS in this field.
	I have said a bit about how the NHS and social care are supporting people with long-term conditions. Our other public services and voluntary organisations are crucial, too, to ensuring that people have the best possible quality of life in these incredibly difficult circumstances.
	I also want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign. Over the past 40 years, it has ensured that the condition, which has not always had a high status or been taken as seriously as it should be, has been given a loud national voice. As a consequence, major advances have been made over the past 10 years that were not made in the preceding 30 years. As well as its campaigning role, the charity provides important information and advice to families in these circumstances. It provides part of the cost of equipment for patients and makes a significant contribution to research into the condition.
	I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli has brought to the attention of the House a crucial issue for a number of families in our country. I shall reflect on her contribution and I, or a relevant ministerial colleague, will meet her to discuss how we can improve the experience of the services for families and for people who have the condition.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Eight o'clock.